Update: [2006-02-11]
Have watched "Loose Change 2nd Edition" (downloadable here), and I am deprecating my Conspiracy Rebuttal video. My primary criticism of In Plane Site was the misleading flash-before-impact footage they presented. And the other accusations in both videos revolved around whether on not a plane impacted the pentagon, which I felt was effectively refuted by witnesses.
...
Unless you are concerned about flashes-before-imapct I'd suggest avoiding "In Plane Site" and my rebuttal altogether. Let's call flashes-before-impact discredited, and move on to more substansial issues.
...
"Loose Change 2nd Edition" presses a different set of points, one's I'm not presently qualified to argue for or against. I can nit pick the video, and nit pick some of its arguments (what constitutes a statistically significant anomoly in stock trading records), but by in large watching the video was an interesting experience.
...
Having created my rebuttal in 2004, I stopped following 9/11 conspiracy theories and assumed I had remained well informed regarding what was being postulated. Wrong, I'm not up-to-speed. Until I am presented with counter-arguments refuting the charges in "Loose Change 2nd Edition", I'm simply going to recommend anyone with an interest in 9/11 watch that video, and also visit up-to-date rebuttal sites.
...
It's completely within the Bush administration's power to refute accusations of conspiracy. Release footage of Pentagon impacts. Answer questions regarding mistaken identities of 9/11 hijackers. Address why the video tape released by the State Department purported to show Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attack shows a person who looks nothing like Bin Laden.
...
I am NOT claiming "Loose Change 2nd Edition" is accurate. But I'm not up to disproving it. And until I can come to a conclusion (or at least feel a reasonable level of certainty one way or the other, the feeling of skepticism I felt when editing my original rebuttal video) I'm encouraging everyone to watch it and follow up with their own investigations.
...
The Bush administration has shown their willingness to deceive. I'd previously assumed that was simply for the sake of political self-preservation due to their incompetence in handling all things 9/11. It doesn't matter why. They are liars, and the onus is on THEM to prove what they say really happened. -Gord
...
--- (Original post follows:)
I bought a copy of Naudet 9|11 DVD after watching "In Plane Site". Wanted to see what the raw frames looked like for the flashes. The flashes are there all right, but I don't think "In Plane Site" extrapolated correctly from the single frame of flash. I basically spent a few days taking in conspiracy theories and the rebuttals. Watch to see my take on it.
...
It probably helps to have seen the Flash animation implying Pentagon was hit by a missile, and the documentary "In Plane Site". My video is a response to those, and its probably not fair to only hear my rebuttal.
...
Something maybe not clear in the video is that while I don't believe US Gov is responsible for the attacks, I also don't think it is an entirely unreasonable assumption. Despite Bush's claims to the contrary, he fought the 9/11 Commission every step of the way. No one puts the neocons on the hot seat, asking pointed questions about The Project for a New American Century.
...
AND there are undoubtably copies of video footage showing SOMETHING hitting the Pentagon. Why not release it? My very own conspiracy theory is that the existence of conspiracy theorists are of a stategic advantage to the Bush administration. There is no clear line between "Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses" to "Bush had prior warning of 9/11" to "someone in US Gov is responsible for 9/11". Better to discredit them all with a "conspiracy theory" label.

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews (19)